Deed not recognized
From Anthony O'Connell to the Honorable Judges of the Nineteenth Circuit Court, January 5, 2015:
"Please tell me if you recognize the enclosed 1992 Deed as a deed. Please give a "Yes" or a "No" so that all concerned can rely upon a clear and acountable position. If "No" please explain why.
Necessity makes me ask this."
I don't understand why Kevin Greenlief, Director of Tax Administration (DTA), does not recognize the 1992 deed for Accortink at Book 8307 pages 1446-1452. I don't understand why he does not take a clear and accountable position. Is the 1992 deed for Accotink recognized or not recognized? I have asked many times.
My inquiry started after noticing that the legal description for Accotink on the Department of Tax Administration (DTA) records was "WB201-109", which refers to the 1975 Will of H. A. O'Connell at Will Book 201 pages 96-110. The legal description should be the last document transferring ownership and that would be the 1992 deed for Accotink at Book 8307 pages 1446-1452 (Transferring ownership to me as Trustee and not to me as an individual) unless the 1992 deed is not recognized.
It takes a long time to find out if there is a problem and then to identify the problem and then to ask the specific question to highlight the problem until you either get a non-nuance answer that all concerned can rely upon or it becomes obvious that you are not going to get an actual answer. It is necessary to differentiate between an answer that appears to be an answer but after close examination isn't. I do not understand why I could not get Kevin Greenlief or Lisa Overton to take a position on whether the 1992 deed for Accotink is recognized so that all concerned can rely upon it. I do not understand why Kevin Greenlief says he has given an answer. confusion confusion8p
If the 1992 deed for Accotink is not recognized the accountants can use innocent Jean Nader under the justification that the Will at WB203 109 is the document transferring ownership and that her name is on the records as "co-owner."
The voluminous correspondence is presented here in different views and/or sizes to make it more manageable.
Deed not recognized 1 (dnr1): Four responses with comments
Deed not recognized 1-8p (dnr1-8p): Four responses with comments 8p
Deed not recognized 2 (dnr2): Responses only
Deed not recognized 3 (dnr3): Responses only grouped by source and/or common theme
Deed not recognized 4 (dnr4): Inquires and responses, 2003
Deed not recognized 5 (dnr5): Inquires and responses, 2004 (January- June)
Deed not recognized 6 (dnr6): Inquires and responses, 2004 (July-December)
Deed not recognized 7 (dnr7): Inquires and responses, 2005 to 2010
It would not be prudent for me as Trustee to enter into a sales contract for Accotink withhold knowing if the 1992 deed for Accotink is recognized. There is a pattern of surprise at vulnerable times. This is one reason why I have not entered into a sales contract for Accotink for nineteen years. My innocent sisters Jean Nader and Sheila O'Connell, each of whom have a 1/3 interest in Accotink, have been extremely tolerate given that they believe the accountants and not me.
Is the last document recognized as transferring ownership of Accotink the 1975 Will of H. A. O'Connell at Will Book 201 pages 96-110, or is it the 1992 deed for Accotink at Book 8307 pages 1446-1452? It has to be one or the other. I don't understand why both are now being shown in the legal description. It automatically plants conflict and confusion; history suggests that it would be used as a wedge. from the start. Is the 1992 deed for Accotink recognized or not recognized? This is the issue.